Skip to main content

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) model based on the proposed KL-AHP and TOPSIS methods, where the KL-AHP method combines analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) to determine the relative weights of decision criteria, and the technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is used to obtain the final rankings of the feasible alternatives. It is reasonable that both subjective judgment and objective information hidden in practical data should be taken into account in decision-making. Therefore, we use AHP to introduce the subjective judgment of decision makers and apply KLD to extract the information of practical data. Then, integrating the subjective judgment and objective information, a new method for determining the relative weights of decision criteria, called KL-AHP (Kullback, Leibler, and AHP), is proposed. For the rankings of the feasible alternatives, the rational and understandable TOPSIS method is employed. Finally, we construct a numerical example for evaluating fighter planes to illustrate our proposed model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. H. Cheng, “Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 343–350, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. H. Cheng, “Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 107, no.1, pp. 25–35, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. Satty, “An eigenvalue allocation model for prioritization and planning”, In: Working paper, Energy Management and Policy Center: University of Pennsylvania, 1972

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. Satty, “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 234–281, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  5. N. Y. Seçme, A. Bayrakdaroglu, and C. Kahraman, “Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 11699–11709, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Göleç, H. Taşkın, “Novel methodologies and a comparative study for manufacturing systems performance evaluations”, Information Sciences, vol. 177, no. 23, pp. 5253–5274, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  7. C.-L. Yang, S.-P. Chuang, and R.-H. Huang, “Manufacturing evaluation system based on AHP/ANP approach for wafer fabricating industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 11369–11377, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. Lai, B.K. Wong, W. Cheung, “Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in the software selection”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 134–144, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  9. K. M. Al-S. Al-Harbi, “Application of AHP in project management”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 19–27, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  10. Z. Chen, W. Yang, “An MAGDM based on constrained FAHP and FTOPSIS and its application to supplier selection”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 54, no. 11-12, pp. 2802–2815, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  11. K. S. Chin, S. Chiu, and V. M. R. Tummala, “An evaluation of success factors using AHP to implement ISO 14001 based EMS”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 341–361, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Badri, “Combining the AHP and GP for global facility location–allocation problem”, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 237–248, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Ramanathan, L.S. Ganesh, “Using AHP for resource allocation problems”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 410–417, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. N. K. Kwak, L. Changwon, “A multi-criteria decisionmaking approach to university resource allocations and information infrastructure”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 234–242, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Korpela, M. Tuominen, “Inventory forecasting with a multiple criteria decision tool”, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 45, no. 1–3, pp. 159–168, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. B. Kim, K. S. Whang, “Forecasting the capabilities of Korean civil aircraft industry”, Omega, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 91–98, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  17. Z. Babic, N. Plazibat, “Ranking of enterprises based on multi-criteria analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 56–57, no. 1–3, pp. 29–35, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. W. Lalib, G. B. Williams, and R. F. O’Conner, “An intelligent maintenance model (system): An application of analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy logic rule-based controller”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 745–757, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  19. C. H. Cheng, M. L. Mon, “Evaluating weapon system by analytic hierarchy process based on fuzzy scales”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 63, pp. 1–10, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  20. D. L. Mon, C. H. Cheng, and J. C. Lin, “Evaluating weapon system using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 127-134, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  21. C. H. Cheng, K. L. Yang, and C. L. Hwang, “Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weights”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 423–435, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. Dağdeviren, S.Yavuz, and N. Kılınç, “Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 8143–8151, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Lee, S.-H. Kang, J. Rosenberger, and S. Kim, “A hybrid approach of goal programming for weapon systems selection”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 521–527, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  24. T. L. Saaty, “Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process”, Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  25. S. Kullback, R. A. Leibler, “On information and sufficiency”, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, no. 4, pp. 99–111, 1951

    Google Scholar 

  26. K. S. Song, “Goodness-of-fit tests based on Kullback-Leibler discrimination information”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1103–1117, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  27. Y. Li, L. Wang, “Testing for homogeneity in mixture using weighted relative entropy”, Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1981–1995, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  28. B. C. T. Cabella, M. J. Sturzbecher, W. Tedeschi, O. B. Filho, D. B. de Araujo, and UP. C. Neves, “A numerical study of the Kullback-Leibler distance in functional magnetic resonance imaging”, Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 20–25, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Ye, “Fault diagnosis of turbine based on fuzzy cross entropy of vague sets”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 8103–8106, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thomas. M. Cover, A. Thomas. Joy, “Elements of information theory”, 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  31. C. L. Hwang, K. Yoon, “Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications”, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  32. H. J. Shyur, H. S. Shih, “A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 44, no. 7-8, pp. 749–761, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  33. Y. Dong, L. Wang, Z.Wang, and H. Zhang, “Air combat effectiveness assessment model based on operational pattern and analytic hierarchy process”, Systems Engineering and Electronics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 885-888, 2006

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by National Statistical Science Research Key Program of China (Grant No. 2013LZ45) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11201229).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian-jun Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Atlantis Press and the authors

About this paper

Cite this paper

Li, Jj., Liu, Lw. (2015). An MCDM Model Based on KL-AHP and TOPSIS and Its Application to Weapon System Evaluation. In: Qi, E., Su, Q., Shen, J., Wu, F., Dou, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation (IEMI2014). Proceedings of the International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation, vol 1. Atlantis Press, Paris. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6239-100-0_48

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics